Response to Apollos

"I do not believe the Hosea passage � or some other passages alluded to in a similar way � can be justified by a simple literal reading of the original passage. I thought that by giving you examples of other dual meaning passages that explain themselves might help you see how there can be different meanings to TANACH passages. Apparently you only want me to �prove� this specific statement in Hosea is prophetic without any appeal to Jesus or Matthew. I will try to do this at the end of this post but I will need to appeal to Targums and multiple meanings so let me explain the basis for these first."

Well, don't you think that it would be appropriate to prove that the verse in Hosea 11 has some sort hidden meaning behind it, since that is the topic of this thread?  My initial question to the Christians on this forum was precisely why Hosea 11 was regarded as a prophecy about the Messiah, when it clearly referred only to Israel. 

Reply by Apollos:

The question at hand is does the Hosea 11 statement have more than just a literal reading meaning. I have shown where is could and you simply said it doesn�t. If you ask a Jew of today what it means, they will undoubtedly say it refers only to Israel but they will also reject many of the conclusions of ancient Jews regarding passages that the Apostles of Jesus cited. Since the Apostles wrote to those ancient Jews, they are the ones you must cite to draw a conclusion about whether the Apostles interpreted TANACH passages correctly.

And let me repeat for the 3rd time now: even if there was a dual meaning in Hosea 11, and the chapter is talking about both Israel and the Messiah, then in the context of the entire chapter, the Messiah, like Israel, is criticized by God for sinning, for worshiping idols, etc.  How then can Christians insist that the chapter is also referring to the Messiah, who was supposedly sinless?  I don't know why you keep ignoring this important point.

Reply by Apollos:

I answered this before so please don�t say I keep ignoring this. I have plainly said that patterns and types are like analogies � they are not to be �fulfilled� in the same way that a predictive prophecy is. Matthew knew that the Jews had been taken out of Egypt so he would have to be an idiot to refer to the Peshat aspect of this verse. Clearly he was not an idiot for his writing reflects more than an idiot could accomplish. It therefore follows that Matthew was referring to the Remez and/or Derash aspect of Hosea 11 and one should not expect these to be fulfilled in the literal ways you claim.

"I would also like to clarify that you have misunderstood or miss-stated my comments about pre-Jesus Jewish thought. There was not complete consensus among Jews concerning TANACH during Jesus� day."

I agree.  I don't think there was consensus even before Jesus' time.  However, you would have to prove that one of the interpretations that did exist in those times revolves around the kind espoused by "Matthew".  To do that, you would have to show primary sources from that time, Jewish ones, which support that claim.  In addition to that, you would have to prove somehow that that interpretation was the correct one.  Honestly, I don't know how you, a non-Jew, could do that. 

Reply by Apollos:

So why is it that I must prove Matthew�s interpretation is the correct one when you refuse to prove a contrary view based on the same type of sources?

Thus far, all you have done is interpret the text according to your own understanding, the Christian one.  And when you did cite sources (which you only did in your last post), they were always Christian sources.  That is disappointing, considering that you have been telling me to look at the text from the Jewish perspective, which I believe I have done.

Reply by Apollos:

It is true that I can prove Matthew�s interpretation correct by referring to the writings of other Jewish Christians and I have a disadvantage if you won�t accept anyone who claimed to be a Christian. But your criteria is subjective and illogical. If someone believed Matthew was accurate � here and elsewhere � they probably became Christians and you want to dismiss them. That�s handy. If they didn�t accept his general message about Jesus, they would have a vested interest in rejecting his interpretations even if previous Jews agreed with Matthew�s interpretations but you think these are the ones we should look to for the correct view.

As I mentioned previously, if the Jews of Matthew�s day believed as you think they did, his message would have been dismissed and rejected by every Jew that read or heard his account. In the Toledoth-Jesu and other anti-Jesus documents we would expect to find arguments against such references but we don�t. Instead, we know that many Jews accepted what he said and the idea that Matthew miss-quoted or miss-applied passages from the TANACH did not arise for many many years later. This means Matthew�s comments were in keeping with Jewish beliefs of his day or at least not contrary to Jewish beliefs of his day.

"Consider the Sadducees for example who did not believe in an after-life yet they claimed they believed in what TANACH said. So if we find a quote from a Sadducee on a passage in Hosea, should we treat that view as �the Jewish view�?"

So, do me and yourself a favor and show us the "true Jewish view".    

Reply by Apollos:

The true Jewish view is the one Jesus espoused. He corrected the Sadducees for example on the issue of the after-life and in this way endorsed what the Pharisees believed about this. He confounded them on the question of how the Messiah could be David�s son and David�s Lord at the same time. Jesus is the one who determines what the Jew should believe and all indications are that He instructed Matthew to write what he did about His early days.

"I think not. But even that type of Jew is a better example of the Jew Matthew was writing to in his account � than the modern day Jew that you want to quote. If you want to second-guess Matthew�s statements from a Jewish perspective, you should do so based on the Jews of his time not ours."

With all due respect, I think even a modern Jewish interpretation is better than a non-Jewish understanding, which is the only you have brought thus far.

Reply by Apollos:

Again you want to dismiss Jews who became Christians from the sources we have. To say Matthew, Paul, John and others were non-Jews is clearly wrong.

"And when you decide that the Jews of that day who rejected Jesus were automatically the true Jews, on what basis do you do this? Should we automatically consider those who rejected Mohammed�s message as the true believers?"

I never said that.  I merely said that the Christian appeal to Hosea 11 to justify the their beliefs was incorrect.  Can you show me any Jewish texts that time which explicitly state that Hosea 11 could be interpreted as referring to both Israel and the Messiah?  The Gospel of Matthew, a Christian text, seems to be the only text we know of that makes that claim. 

Reply by Apollos:

To my knowledge you may be correct. But that does not mean it is incorrect. As I have shown, I have not seen a contrary interpretation on this passage � from ancient Jews.

"One of the sources we have for early and pre-Jesus Jewish thought are Targums - ancient Aramaic translations, plus comments, of the Old Testament. The older the better but even those completed after the time of Jesus generally reflect pre-Jesus Jewish beliefs. (Some think Targum Jonathan on the Prophets is pre-Christian already). In using these sources, one can make the case that the Hosea passage and others were understood by Jewish sages the same as Matthew does."

Sounds great.  Now all you have to do is back your claim up with sources.  Which Jewish sages believed Hosea could have been a prophecy of the Messiah?  Josephus?  Philo? 

Reply by Apollos:

You apparently don�t know about the Targums. As I have said, the Targums are silent on this verse � to my knowledge. Josephus and Philo have nothing to do with them.

"Even without including Jewish Kabbalah � which many Jews hold to, it is clear that an orthodox Jewish reading of Torah includes more than simply Peshat. Do an internet search for the above words and you will confirm these things as well known Jewish interpretations of Torah."

This is all well and good. I am not contending any of this. I still fail to see how "Matthew" was right to use Hosea 11 as a reference to the Messiah. 

Reply by Apollos:

If you aren�t contending that there are 4 orthodox ways of interpreting the Torah including allegory, metaphor and mystery, why do you then say Matthew was not correct in using one of these approaches?

"In the Targum on Isaiah 9:5-6, the child is seen as the Messiah. It is generally agreed that the child of Isaiah 7:14 is the same child as Isaiah 9:5 and therefore not Hezekiah - or Hezekiah and the Messiah with dual meanings involved. The point is � when a prophet speaks of God saying �my son�, the ancient Jews immediately suspected a reference to the Messiah or a dual meaning including the Messiah. (There are many other examples but I am trying to be concise.)"

Where are your sources?  By whom is it "...agreed that the child of Isaiah 7:14 is the same child as Isaiah 9:5 and therefore not Hezekiah..."?  Where is it stated that when God said "my son", the ancient Jews knew he was referring to the Messiah?

Reply by Apollos:

In the Targums. There are numerous examples but I am not about to spend the time showing you something that you will simply dismiss.

"It is also likely that Matthew was quoting from a Targum in his statement because the specific wording is slightly different in the Greek than the Septuagint. I offer some references on this if you want to study the details. http://www.bsw.org/project/filologia/filo12/Art05n.html

http://www.bsw.org/project/filologia/filo12/Art05.html

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mtappa.htm"

Once again, a Christian source...Why is it so difficult to bring a Jewish source?  Every source you have referenced has echoed the same non-Jewish interpretation, and yet not once has a Jewish interpretation been offered.  I appreciate your efforts but you have failed to prove your point. 

Reply by Apollos:

I don�t believe some of the people who wrote the articles I referenced are Christians at all but what does it matter if they are? You seem to be saying that if a Christian quotes an ancient manuscript or passage, he has somehow made that reference invalid. The links I sent you to show facts and passages that anyone can confirm. That is why I provided them to you. If you think any of the facts they assert are not correct, please show this. Otherwise go ask a Jew to read the passages and statements on the section I referred to and see if they disagree.

"The Targum on Hosea does not elaborate on the meaning of the �son� in verse 11:1 but it does differ from the Septuagint translation which renders this �his children�. Matthew, the Masoretic Text and and the Targum on Hosea are all in agreement on the wording."

And this proves what?  Even if the son is both Israel and the Messiah, is it correct to come to the conclusion that like Israel, the Messiah would also sin against God?

Reply by Apollos:

It simply shows how Matthew was probably quoting from a Targum and not the Septuagint.

"When one considers that it is completely proper for a Jew to read a passage with different meanings in mind (see Wikipedia and other sources above), and that a reference to �God�s son� was typically viewed as Messianic (see references to Targum on Isaiah above), it is completely reasonable for Matthew to refer to Hosea 11:1 as he does. At a minimum, there is no contrary view on this passage in the Targums. The burden of proof is therefore on the one claiming Matthew is wrong."

No, the burden of proof would be on the person who initially made the claim that Hosea 11 was a prophecy about the Messiah (i.e. "Matthew").  "Matthew" does not expound on how he came to that conclusion.  He did not say anything about a dual meaning.  The burden of proof is also on you to prove that Matthew's perspective was 1) the correct view and 2) a view shared by Jews of the time.  Thus far, you have failed, in my opinion, to prove your position. 

Reply by Apollos:

I have shown that Matthew may have been saying the same thing as some Jews of his day believed and since there is no contrary view on this verse, there is nothing to prove. It could have been a new interpretation as well but still in keeping with the 4 meanings of Torah study. The crux of the matter is whether Jesus was who Matthew said he was. If he wasn�t, who cares what Matthew says about Hosea 11? If Jesus was who Matthew said he was, Jesus undoubtedly told Matthew that this was a proper comment on Hosea. Since I believe Jesus is the supreme authority on what the correct interpretation of the TANACH is, I go with Matthew.

If you think this sounds circular in that we have to believe Matthew was being accurate about Jesus who in turn authorized Matthew to write about Him, you are forgetting that we have 3 or 4 other writers who say the same thing about Jesus giving Matthew this authority, so it is not circular. If one believes Jesus was who the NT writers say He was, or even that He might be who they said He was, it is easy to see how the correct understanding of Hosea can include analogy and pattern prophecy. If you want to presume that Jesus did not do and say the things the NT writers say of Him, then you will undoubtedly find what you already presumed � that Matthew wasn�t accurate in his writing about Jesus.

Apollos

Islamispeace -

You are also arguing that if Matthew was unique in his interpretation, that automatically makes him wrong. As I have pointed out, there are various areas of TANACH that the Jews were incorrect on as far as Jesus was concerned. Divorce for example is one where everyone � including the disciples � needed to be corrected by Jesus on. So even if Matthew was unique in his interpretation of Hosea 11, it does not equate to him being wrong.

I think you are missing my initial challenge to your comments on Matthew and Hosea. I said and continue to say that the different views Jews took when studying Torah includes patterns, allegories, analogies, etc. Therefore when you presume that Matthew intended �fulfillment� to be the literal prediction-fulfillment of Hosea 11, you are missing the Jewish context. Even if Matthew was wrong in appealing to Hosea 11 as he did, he would have to be wrong on the dual or pattern aspect he intended. For the reader to do as you initially did � thinking he was appealing to the literal (Peshat) meaning of the passage � that is wrong.

You claim that I am changing my argument but it is you who have changed yours. You initially claimed Matthew was referring to a literal prediction-fulfillment of Hosea 11. I gave you reasons why this is a na�ve and incorrect reading of Matthew based on Jewish perspectives. You then admit that analogies, metaphors, types, etc. are valid ways Jews have and continue to interpret Torah but you argue that Matthew was not justified in interpreting Hosea 11 this way. Your argument has changed so my response has changed.

I did not say � as you assert � that other writer�s confirm Matthew�s interpretation of Hosea 11. I said clearly: �that we have 3 or 4 other writers who say the same thing about Jesus giving Matthew this authority�. That is an important factor if Matthew is presenting something unique.

I admit that without appealing to Matthew�s authority or information from Jesus, it is not likely that one can confirm that his interpretation of Hosea 11 is correct. But neither can one refute his claim. To do that we would have to have contrary Jewish views from his time and we would have to know that those contrary views were the correct ones. You haven�t provided any evidence of this and I don�t see how anyone could.

You apparently think this is an important issue but I do not. The reason is � I view Matthew�s writing as a solid historical account about Jesus. It could have errors in it like the one you claim and it would still be a good historical account of Jesus. In fact, whatever Matthew intended by appealing to Hosea 11, we can conclude that Jesus must have been in Egypt as a young child. If Matthew was concocting �prophecies� it wouldn�t be about fictitious events in Jesus life, would it? It would be about well known events that he was trying to legitimize. So every odd or questionable reference Matthew makes to TANACH is a strong indication that the corresponding event in Jesus� life was an actual historical one. Even if Jesus did not fulfill any of the prophecies Matthew attributes to Him, we can have confidence that Matthew is telling us what Jesus really did and said. And the things Jesus said and did are very important.

Apollos